The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHILD POVERTY IN SOCIAL INCLUSION PARTNERSHIPS

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, has described child poverty as a 'scar on the soul of the nation' (quoted in Barnes, 2000: 1). In July 1999, the Prime Minister committed the New Labour Government to abolish child poverty within a generation and halve it within 10 years. Meanwhile, the Scottish Executive has also pledged, as part of its social justice agenda, to defeat child poverty (Scottish Executive, 1999). This is an ambitious target, not the least because the scale of child poverty in Scotland - and in Britain more generally - is considerable and has increased dramatically over the last 2 decades.

1.2 In order to tackle child poverty, the UK Government and the Scottish Executive have introduced a range of measures at both local and national level. In Scotland, many of these initiatives are located in and funded through the Social Inclusion Partnerships set up by the Scottish Executive. Social Inclusion Partnerships (SIPs) are multi-agency partnership bodies made up of representatives from the statutory sector, such as local authorities and health boards, the voluntary sector, community representatives, and the private sector. Their task is to co-ordinate activities to promote social inclusion, prevent social exclusion, develop innovative models of working and fund local projects that fit local priorities. SIPs themselves have relatively modest budgets, which are regarded as a lever to pull down funding from other sources, including the mainstream budgets of public service partners.

1.3 The SIP programme was established in 1998 but around half of SIPs are former Priority Partnership and Regeneration Programmes Areas. Currently, there are 48 SIPs, of which 34 are 'area-based' and 14 'thematic'. Area-based SIPs target specific geographical areas of deprivation and exclusion. Although most area-based SIPs are located in urban Scotland, there are some in rural areas. Thematic SIPs target particular 'communities of interest' within defined geographical areas. Target groups are those at risk of social exclusion and include young people, young carers, black and minority ethnic communities, and prostitutes.

1.4 However, little is known about the role of SIPs in tackling child poverty. How aware are the people working for SIPs or their partner organisations about the extent of child poverty? How does tackling child poverty fit into their wider social justice agenda? What gaps remain that, if addressed, could help to alleviate or prevent child poverty?

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND CHILD POVERTY

1.5 The Scottish Executive has set itself demanding Milestones along the route to defeating child poverty in Scotland. These Social Justice Milestones include the targets of reducing the proportion of children living in workless households and reducing the proportion of children living in low-income households (Scottish Executive, 1999).

1.6 Despite the policy importance of the subject, the evidence base about child poverty in Scotland is relatively thin. Almost all of the in-depth studies of child poverty have focused on Great Britain as a whole. Global estimates for Scotland are available on the proportion of children in poverty. But until now there has been no in-depth analysis of the incidence and nature of child poverty in Scotland today. One important reason for this gap in the evidence base is that, until recently, most of the available data sources were GB-wide surveys with relatively small sample sizes for Scotland (and invariably excluding households north of the Caledonian Canal).

1.7 However, the advent of the new Scottish Household Survey means that it is now possible to conduct an in-depth analysis of child poverty in Scotland. Moreover, because the survey includes a geo-code for whether or not the respondent lives in one of the area-based Social Inclusion Partnerships, it is also possible to compare the incidence and characteristics of child poverty in SIPs with elsewhere in Scotland.

RESEARCH AIMS

1.8 The research reported here examined child poverty in Social Inclusion Partnerships and in Scotland more generally. It had 3 aims:

2. To establish the incidence and characteristics of households with children who are experiencing poverty or are at risk of poverty in Scotland.
4. To establish the geographical distribution of these households, in order to determine the proportion and characteristics of those that fall within and outwith current area-based SIP boundaries.
6. To examine approaches within SIPs to address child poverty and explore how well these are meeting the needs identified in the first 2 aims of the study.

METHODS

1.9 The first 2 aims of the project were addressed by undertaking secondary analysis of 2 large-scale datasets: Households Below Average Incomes and the Scottish Household Survey.

1.10 Households below Average Income ( HBAI) is a dataset produced by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It is based on the Family Resources Survey, a continuous survey of over 20,000 households in Great Britain. The research reported here used the HBAI data for the financial year 1999/00, which was the latest available at the time of the research. The analysis was based the 2,590 children living in the Scottish households included within the HBAI dataset.

1.11 The Scottish Household Survey ( SHS) was the main data source for this part of the project. The analysis was conducted using the SHS data for the calendar years 1999 and 2000. This gave an effective sample size of 14,519 children, on which the analysis was based. The income data in the survey were uprated by an appropriate inflation factor supplied by the DWP to bring them up to December 2000 prices.

1.12 Income in the Scottish Household Survey was adjusted using an equivalence scale in order to take into account the fact that living together allows households to attain higher living standards than they would if the individual household members were living on their own with the same cash income. The research team employed the well-known McClements scale - as used in the HBAI data series - to compute equivalised income (DSS, 2001).

1.13 For the purpose of this research, poverty was defined using the relative definition adopted by Eurostat and the Scottish Executive. Thus, children were defined as experiencing poverty if they were living in households with a disposable, equivalised income after housing costs that was below 60 per cent of the GB median. Children living in households with an income below 50 per cent of the median were defined as being in more severe poverty, while those with an income below 70 per cent of the median were defined as being at risk of poverty. Children in households with an income at or above 70 per cent of the median were defined as being not in poverty.

1.14 The Households Below Average Income publications and Social Justice Annual Reports provide figures on income poverty both before and after housing costs. There are advantages and disadvantages of either approach, but for simplicity and ease of presentation this report focuses solely on income poverty after housing costs have been deducted. This is in line with the 'headline measure' presented in the Social Justice Annual Reports.

1.15 The median income for Great Britain was calculated from the HBAI. It was then adjusted in the SHS to take into account differences in the definition and treatment of income between the 2 surveys. These income differences are discussed at length in Appendix 1.

1.16 It is important to bear in mind that this part of the research was based on data for 1999 and 2000 and therefore has not taken into account changes in the tax and benefit system that have been made since then. It is also important to note that the analysis is based on a cross-section of children at one point in time and takes no account of the dynamics of child poverty. This is an important qualification because not all children that were poor in 1999/2000 would have remained poor in 2001; and likewise, not all children that were not poor in 1999/2000 would have remained so in 2001. It seems fair to suggest that persistent poverty is of even greater concern than transitory poverty (Hills, 1999).

1.17 The third aim of the research was addressed by means of a telephone survey of SIP managers, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with staff in 4 SIP case studies. Managers of all area-based and thematic SIPs were contacted during July and August 2001 to obtain initial information on child poverty through a telephone survey. The objective was to use this data to assist in the selection of 4 case studies. The telephone survey included questions on the extent to which SIP managers saw child poverty as within the SIP's remit, their perceptions of 'child poverty' and brief details of child poverty initiatives in which they were involved.

1.18 Following the telephone survey, 4 SIPs were selected for more detailed consideration using a case study approach. The aim was that the case study SIPs should exemplify different approaches to tackling child poverty. Interviews were conducted with the SIP manager in each of the 4 case studies, and with key partners and project staff identified in consultation with the SIP manager. The interviews were intended to gain a deeper understanding of the nature of child poverty in the SIP, of the efforts being made to tackle child poverty and of any perceived barriers to tackling child poverty. In addition, documentation on the SIP and its associated projects was collected and reviewed.

1.19 The research brief did not include interviews with the users of SIP services or with children themselves. Nor was it possible within the confines of this project to undertake an evaluation of the effects of the work of SIPs towards tackling child poverty.

1.20 Further details of the methods used to address the third aspect of the research are set out in Appendix 3.

1.21 Except where noted to the contrary (mainly in Chapter Five), references to child poverty should be taken to mean poverty of income ('income poverty'). Chapters Three and Four focus exclusively on income poverty. Chapter Five takes a broader view of child poverty and includes discussion of non-financial dimensions such as poverty of opportunity.

STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

1.22 The structure of the remainder of this report is as follows:

« Previous | Contents | Next »